skip to main content
10.1145/1639642.1639656acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesassetsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

ClassInFocus: enabling improved visual attention strategies for deaf and hard of hearing students

Published:25 October 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Deaf and hard of hearing students must juggle their visual attention in current classroom settings. Managing many visual sources of information (instructor, interpreter or captions, slides or whiteboard, classmates, and personal notes) can be a challenge. ClassInFocus automatically notifies students of classroom changes, such as slide changes or new speakers, helping them employ more beneficial observing strategies. A user study of notification techniques shows that students who liked the notifications were more likely to visually utilize them to improve performance.

References

  1. L. Bartram, C. Ware, and T. W. Calvert. Moticons: detection, distraction and task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 5(58):515--545, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Cavender, R. Vanam, D. Barney, R. Ladner, and E. Riskin. MobileASL: Intelligibility of sign language video over mobile phones. Disability&Rehab.: Assistive Technology, pages 1--13, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. C. Cavender, R. E. Ladner, and R. I. Roth. The summer academy for advancing deaf and hard of hearing in computing. SIGCSE Bull., 41(1):514--518, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Cherniavsky, A. C. Cavender, E. A. Riskin, and R. E. Ladner. Variable frame rate for low power mobile sign language communication. Proceedings of ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS), pages 163--170, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Czerwinski, E. Cutrell, and E. Horvitz. Instant messaging and interruption: Influence of task type on performance. OZCHI 2000 Conference Proceedings, pages 356--361, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. W. G. Dye, P. C. Hauser, and D. Bavelier. Deaf Cognition: Foundations and Outcomes. Oxford University Press, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Gluck, A. Bunt, and J. McGrenere. Matching attentional draw with utility in interruption. In CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 41--50, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Hegarty, P. Shah, and A. Miyake. Constraints on using the dual-task methodology to specify the degree of central executive involvement in cognitive tasks. Memory&Cognition, 28(3):376--385, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. R. Ho mann, P. Baudisch, and D. S. Weld. Evaluating visual cues for window switching on large screens. pages 929--938, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Khan, J. Matejka, G. W. Fitzmaurice, and G. Kurtenbach. Spotlight: directing users' attention on large displays. pages 791--798, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. H. G. Lang. Higher education for deaf students: Research priorities in the new millennium. Journal of Deaf Education&Deaf Studies, 4(7):267--280, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. M. Marschark, H. G. Lang, and J. A. Albertini. Educating Deaf Students: From Research to Practice. Oxford University Press, US, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. Marschark, J. B. Pelz, C. Convertino, P. Sapere, M. E. Arndt, and R. Seewagen. Classroom interpreting and visual information processing in mainstream education for deaf students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4):727--761, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. R. Mayer, J. Heiser, and S. Lonn. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Jrnl of Educational Psychology, 93(1):187--198, March 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. R. Mayer and R. Moreno. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Jrnl of Educational Psychology, 90(2):312--320, June 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. D. McFarlane. Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(1):63--139, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. M. Rantanen and J. H. Goldberg. The effect of mental workload on the visual field size and shape. Ergonomics, 42(6):816--834, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. T. J. Robertson, S. Prabhakararao, M. Burnett, C. Cook, J. R. Ruthru, L. Beckwith, and A. Phalgune. Impact of interruption style on end-user debugging. In CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 287--294, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. D. J. Simons and D. T. Levin. Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(7):261--267, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. C. Speier, J. Valacich, and I. Vessey. The effects of task interruption and information presentation on individual decision making. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Systems, pages 21--36, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Treisman and G. Gelade. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12:97--136, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. L. Williams. Tunnel vision induced by a foveal load manipulation. Human Factors, 27(2):221--227, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. S. Zhai, J. Wright, T. Selker, and S. A. Kelin. Graphical means of directing user's attention in the visual interface. Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pages 59--66, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. ClassInFocus: enabling improved visual attention strategies for deaf and hard of hearing students

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          Assets '09: Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility
          October 2009
          290 pages
          ISBN:9781605585581
          DOI:10.1145/1639642

          Copyright © 2009 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 25 October 2009

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate436of1,556submissions,28%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader